| 1 |
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 11:35 +0100, Markus Duft wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hey guys :) |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Just wanted to stop by and get some opinions on a patch i wrote for the |
| 5 |
> prefix branch. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
argh... managed to fail to attach the patch _again_ :) at least i |
| 8 |
managed to add the output stuff i mentioned before to the patch in the |
| 9 |
meantime. so this patch should be pretty much complete. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Thanks and Cheers, Markus |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> i'll try and explain what i want in the first place: i'm porting things |
| 15 |
> to native windows. since windows isn't too cooperative, i'm unable to |
| 16 |
> merge most things (and with other things, i simply don't want to), and |
| 17 |
> thus i need to take those things from somewhere else (more or less the |
| 18 |
> complete @system). I _am_ able to build all those things for interix |
| 19 |
> (which is the host system in the windows case). So what i want is a |
| 20 |
> setup of two prefix instances with a certain relation to each other: the |
| 21 |
> native windows prefix should be able to recognize installed packages |
| 22 |
> from the other instance, and resolve dependencies by eventually using |
| 23 |
> the other .../var/db/... |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> This could be (and is) quite usefull for all other platforms too. For |
| 26 |
> exmaple i could use prefix chaining on a linux box. I could create a |
| 27 |
> prefix containing a base system, and then for testing of |
| 28 |
> i-don't-know-whatever, i could create another small prefix inheriting |
| 29 |
> all installed packages from the other one. this way new prefixes can |
| 30 |
> stay very slim, but still the "parent" prefix is not altered on merges. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> one issue not handled by the current patch is, that prefixes can have |
| 33 |
> different CHOST/ARCH/... (which is the case with x86-interix and |
| 34 |
> x86-winnt for example). |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> another thing is, that i plan to add some output in the merge list, |
| 37 |
> telling the user, which packages have been readonly-resolved from |
| 38 |
> another portage instance. right now the dependency is treated as if it |
| 39 |
> didn't exist. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> all together, i'm pretty sure i did the one or the other forbidden thing |
| 42 |
> in my patch, but that's why i'm asking the guys-who-know :) it was hard |
| 43 |
> enough to read the portage source and get where i am, so i'm happy with |
| 44 |
> the result ;) |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Waiting for comments, suggestions, etc. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Thanks in advance, |
| 49 |
> Cheers, Markus |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> |
Archives